On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:32 AM Andi Gutmans <andigutm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I must admit that the first time I read Zeev’s email I got anxious... but > it is frustrating that PHP has a WAY better runtime than Python and most > other dynamic languages yet is falling out of fashion. It’s strange given > how much better it actually runs (really being unbiased here). One reason > is security perception (which is BS but perception matters) and the second > is arguably some of the historic baggage which makes some folks feel PHP is > hard to master without a manual (we have the best manual). > > So many times I have thought “is it time to just take an axe and simplify > it and do a cleanup?”. I actually don’t think we lack many features but > rather lots of stuff I would dump like references, array(), global > namespace for functions(?), type juggling in areas where we should be > stricter, etc... I actually think that having a p++ is risky but it is an > opportunity. I think it’s mostly be an opportunity if we’d be careful about > feature bloat and try and be really aggressive about removing things and > cleaning up. We potentially would get the significant benefits of our > runtime but with a cleaner language. Will non-PHP appreciate it? maybe, > maybe not... I actually do think there’s value of a different brand just > because of the BS perception issues... > Its extremely hard imho to be in fashion all the time and it takes anticipation to get next years fashion right. Or you can just wait to get in fashion again with the good things you already have and incrementally improve them. Nothing a PHP / P++ fork will do changes the fact that PHP is a C-style language, and Python gets praise for its easy to read and understand syntax. Nothing will change the fact that PHP architecture is primarily shared nothing, and the current hype is "shared everything" with Node.js (yes i know about Swoole et al). But why bother? A language can't be everything. A different brand might help get a different perception, BUT it also has no reputation at all at the beginning. If you say "better PHP" (or the likes), it gets PHPs "reputation" by affiliation automatically and you are at the same point as before. What would be the plan to boost or change the reputation? How are you going to find P++ in Google? How are users searching for things with PHP and P++? What's the documentation going to look like for two languages that share so much? Specifically from a marketing POV splitting up the language into two makes no sense at all. Given PHP has no unified marketing message or a dedicated department it is much better to use the existing brand, with all its positive and negative perception and just keep rolling with it. A strategy to change the security or any other perception of PHP is solely a marketing, teaching and persistence issue. As you say the language is already the fastest dynamic language with the best runtime. But "starting over" with 0 brand name and perception is much harder problem than changing the existing brand, and its not at all technical challenge. greetings Benjamin > > Andi > > Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > > ________________________________ > From: Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net> > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 12:54 PM > To: Internals > Subject: [PHP-DEV] P++: FAQ > > During the discussion of the P++ proposal ( > https://externals.io/message/106453), it became painfully clear that this > idea did little, so far, to bring peace to the galaxy. > > However, based on a lot of the feedback, both on internals@ and elsewhere > - > it seems that a lot of people simply didn't really understand what this > idea was actually proposing to do. I'll take the blame for that - by not > making the idea sufficiently clear. > > I went on and create an FAQ, that attempts to address many of the questions > and common misconceptions that repeatedly came up. > > It's available here: https://wiki.php.net/pplusplus/faq > > Before you read it, I want to stress that this is an attempt to > provide *everyone > with a good deal, and nobody with a raw deal. *It doesn't mean it's > successful at that (although I think it is) - but the motivation is clean > and positive. If & when you read this FAQ, please try to read it without > any preconceived notions. > > If there are additional questions that you think are missing, please let me > know - or better yet, if you're up for constructively adding them - go > ahead and do that. > > Thanks, > > Zeev >
